Do you think that photographic evidence found on Facebook would be excluded on these grounds? "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." I was making a general, overly broad and ultimately incorrect claim.

Recognizing that my claim was flawed, I would like to ask, "Why is it bad that this evidence is included?" I think that it violates people's privacy. However, does it do more than that? Besides the violation of privacy, is it more likely to cause injustice? The ideal insurance company would recognize and pay out all sound claims and reject all fraudulent claims. I feel like this does not work against that end.

-- StevenWu - 24 Nov 2009

It seems like the more evidence a jury has, the more likely it is that they will make the correct decision.

-- StevenWu - 24 Nov 2009

"A Canadian woman claims she has lost her health benefits after her insurance company used her Facebook pictures as evidence that she was no longer depressed."

-- MichaelDignan - 23 Nov 2009

<--/commentPlugin-->